[danielrhodes]

Says the person leaving a comment on a forum which would likely not exist due to legal risks without Section 230 protection. :-)

I agree transmission should receive extra protection. But there is no case where moderating every piece of content that flies across the internet is economical nor even feasible given the volume and how insanely difficult it is to create repeatable one-size fits all rules. However, given the amount of public discourse that exists online now, we would only see a chilling effect from changing these rules. It gets even harder when you think about something like Mastodon.

Is the current state of the world ideal? By no means. It wasn't ideal before either when media and public discourse was controlled and channeled by only a few entities. And we should expect to see evolutions in the future as well - we haven't found the happy place yet.

At the very least, it seems reasonable if large public platforms were required to be more transparent about their moderation efforts and rules so at least we can see what is behind the curtain. The lack thereof has created a lot of distrust.

[austin-cheney]

> would likely not exist due to legal risks without Section 230 protection. :-)

There is no reason to believe that, because there is no precedent either way for online social media as social media did not exist before the passage of the law. If looking at offline media that publishes submissions from users this opinion is absolutely false.

[habinero]

Offline media curate user submissions. They don't just blindly publish anything sent to them. No magazine is accidentally publishing CSAM because someone sent it in.

In any case, we can, in fact, believe it. The entire point of the statute is to cover user-generated content, which is exactly what social media is.